Dictionaries Updated: Marriage
So, what you gonna do? A certain kind of person likes to say that gay people want to "change the definition of marriage" to include same-sex couples. It's a specious argument -- a language is a living, organic entity that is constantly changing -- when was the last time you used the word "whom" in a conversation? Words change their meanings all the time. And besides, a society's definition of marriage is completely dependent on the norms of that society. But still, a certain kind of authoritarian person likes to point to the dictionary to prove that marriage means only blah-blah-blah.
Mirriam Webster's online Dictionary has updated their definition:
And I see that Dictionary.com has updated their definition as well. Well, they have ten different subdefinitions -- here's Number Four:
Things are changing, gay people are marrying, that's all there is to it. It's in the dictionary.
Mirriam Webster's online Dictionary has updated their definition:
mar·riage
Pronunciation: \?mer-ij, ?ma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriageb: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3: an intimate or close union
And I see that Dictionary.com has updated their definition as well. Well, they have ten different subdefinitions -- here's Number Four:
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
Things are changing, gay people are marrying, that's all there is to it. It's in the dictionary.
posted by JimK at 10:09 PM
36 Comments:
Wow... I wonder how the conservatives are going to feel about that. AnonBigot?
As a linguist, this is a great example showing how definitions of a word change over time and that language is in constant evolution.
Bravo!
On another note... Teenage pregnancy is still on the rise due to flase ideas and anti-reality of the abstinence-only sex-ed programs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/18/AR2009031801597.html?hpid=moreheadlines
President Obama follows through on a campaign promise:
In turnaround, U.S. signs U.N. gay rights document
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States, in a reversal of Bush administration policy, has decided to sign on to a U.N. declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality, the State Department said on Wednesday.
State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the Obama administration, which took office eight weeks ago, would now join 66 other U.N. member states who supported a U.N. statement in December that condemned human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," Wood told reporters.
"As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora..."
Did anyone else notice that there is not a religious connotation included in either definition of marriage? Shows once again that "civil" marriage and "religious" marriages are different beasts. Too bad the Maryland State Legislature hasn't figured this out yet.
“Did anyone else notice that there is not a religious connotation included in either definition of marriage? Shows once again that "civil" marriage and "religious" marriages are different beasts.”
Only people!
There’s not even a hint of fairy tale leprechaun marriage connoted in those definitions.
I normally wouldn’t mind, but they’re just so blatant about their prejudice against fairy tale marriages.
It just totally goes to show that “civil” marriages and “leprechaun marriages” are two completely different animals.
So is anyone taking bets on how long it is before the "family" groups start boycotting the dictionary companies?
My bet is before 3/27.
Emproph said:
"It just totally goes to show that “civil” marriages and “leprechaun marriages” are two completely different animals."
I didn't even know there were female leprechauns -- I've never heard of them in any of the old folklore. It was always "finding a leprechaun and getting HIS gold." So are these genetic female leprechauns or trans leprechauns?
;)
Happy Belated St. Patrick's day everone!
Cynthia
The thing about language is that word meaning is in constant change, religious or not.
Usually word meanings change due to cultural and societal perspectives.
Conscious minds and equality are winning.
Etymology is a beautiful thing!
"Words change their meanings all the time"
That's true.
Not long ago, fact meant something true.
Now, thanks to TTF, it means propaganda.
In both cases, society is the loser.
"Words change their meanings all the time"
Especially when Democrats are in the White House!
Does anyone still remember what the meaning of is is?
If not, ask the Secretary of State.
This administration has a touch of class!
The etymology for bigot is interesting:
(from etymonline.com)
--1598, from M.Fr. bigot, from O.Fr., supposedly a derogatory name for Normans, the old theory (not universally accepted) being that it springs from their frequent use of O.E. oath bi God. Plausible, since the Eng. were known as goddamns in Joan of Arc's France, and during World War I Americans serving in France were said to be known as les sommobiches (see also son of a bitch). But the earliest Fr. use of the word (12c.) is as the name of a people apparently in southern Gaul. The earliest Eng. sense is of "religious hypocrite," especially a female one, and may be influenced by beguine. Sense extended 1687 to other than religious opinions.
Definition:
big⋅ot/ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation [big-uht]
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Synonyms:
fanatic
hypocrite
intolerant
racist
zealot
chauvinist
diehard
doctrinaire
enthusiast
extremist
fiend
maniac
"a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion"
Derrick has successfully defined the TTFer.
He must of got he head fixed!
Actually, AnonBigot--
I think it is interesting to show that a word that first started as "By God" (and by religious people, mind you) has come to be used to describe YOU.
Interesting.
I hope he can get his money back for when he got he head fixed.
I don't think it worked!
Interesting development...made me think of George Orwell and the essay he wrote, "Politics and the English Language" (1946). It can be found here,
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
as well as any number of spots on the internet. I also found this rather perceptive book review that touched on this theme of the abuse of language here,
http://www.newsweek.com/id/166816?tid=relatedcl
The passage I found most instructive is right at the start of Orwell's essay:
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration...
Yes, language can and indeed does evolve over time...no surprise there. What needs to be asked is this: in what direction is it "evolving"? I would submit that a culture that calls the destruction of unborn human life "choice" and calls the coupling of two men or two women (then again, why limit it to just two?...maybe those old time Mormons are on to something) "marriage" is tending in the direction of decadence.
Derrick writes,
The thing about language is that word meaning is in constant change, religious or not.
Usually word meanings change due to cultural and societal perspectives.
Conscious minds and equality are winning.
Etymology is a beautiful thing!
Yes, radical, indiscriminate and violently leveling cultural winds of equality are sweeping across the fruited plains...and just as ideas having consequences, so do words. The first casualty will likely be that other idea that Alexis de Toqueville foresaw as in tension with equality - freedom. Now some over-baked religious folks will likely see in all of this a hope for redemption by their god. I am placing my bets on the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, and the fact that a civilization can expend only so much energy in the maintenance of so much dishonesty until it all collapses under its own weight.
God does not belong in politics, Warren.
Don't display your ignorance, Derrick.
God belongs everywhere.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
The Final Letter, as Sent
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Orin bemoaned:
“and calls the coupling of two men or two women (then again, why limit it to just two?...maybe those old time Mormons are on to something) "marriage" is tending in the direction of decadence.”
I find it ironic, that for decades gays and lesbians have been berated and chastised for being “promiscuous” and “decadent” for their behavior. In fact, some of the religious leaders I’ve heard can’t seem to say “gays” without preceding it with “promiscuous.” And now that gays are struggling to get together and form committed, monogamous relationships recognized and sanctioned by both their friends and the state, the whole society is “tending in the direction of decadence.”
Very often AIDS has been used to “prove” gay behavior is irresponsible and shouldn’t be sanctioned. But the fact of the matter is if every gay and lesbian teen was encouraged to be in a monogamous relationship the same way that heterosexuals are, and later encouraged, even EXPECTED to marry the one they love, the AIDS virus would have fewer places to go, there would be far more married couples with good homes to take in unwanted babies from irresponsible heterosexuals who want to abort them, and perhaps with more happily married couples all around, there would be less adultery.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"But the fact of the matter is if every gay and lesbian teen was encouraged to be in a monogamous relationship the same way that heterosexuals are"
It's a dubious idea that this would have any effect at all.
After all, government agencies have been urging gays to use condoms and practice monogamy for years and, yet, especially among young gays, there is a rebellious attitude about "the man" telling them what to do when they prefer randomly promiscuous barebacking.
Dangerous irresponsibility is part of the gay nature.
They have no choice.
Of course, "Anonymous", all heterosexual men assiduously use condoms every time they engage in sex! Nothing promiscuous at all about the majority heterosexual sex practices!!("After all, government agencies have been urging gays to use condoms and practice monogamy for years and, yet, especially among young gays, there is a rebellious attitude about "the man" telling them what to do when they prefer randomly promiscuous barebacking.") I guess it is not important to address these issues with the majority heterosexual males.
I wonder who impregnates the thousands of heterosexual girls and women every year? Gay men? Who, for example, impregnated Ms. Palin? And just who is responsible for the overwhelming number of sexually transmitted diseases? (statistically and factually) I'll clue you in - it's not gay men.
What a joke!!
Diogenes
I think you don't have to go any further than the OP first paragraph. The definition of marriage is dependent on the norms of the culture (forgive me if I have not quoted verbatim).
Our majority culture *still* maintains, by an overwhelming majority, that marriage should be defined as one man and one one woman.
Interestingly though, the majority of those same 80% plus of folks who say this also sign on to the idea that homosexuals ought to have some form of civil union. The culture is willing to back human and legal equality for homosexuals but remain adamant that they will not be forced into prosthelytizing a way of life with tremendously higher incidents of STD's, alcoholism, and suicide, among other things.
Maybe it's time to stop whining about how you're being picked on and join the crowd that has shown they're willing to accept you.
Clandaddy, the majority of people are straight, and the majority of marriages are between opposite-sex couples. The majority of people, at least in our county, believe that people unlike themselves deserve fair treatment.
I have said on the blog here several times that I don't know why a government is involved in deciding who you can marry. It's not something that the people need to vote on. I think the government should issue a kind of contract to those who apply for it, which bestows the rights we associate with marriage, and that contract should be available to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples. That contract is not "marriage" for anyone, it only defines legal rights of a committed couple. There should be some penalties for terminating the agreement, as well. Then, if you want to "marry" you go through a religious institution (even if the "religion" were secularism), and if there is one that will marry gay people then fine, they're married.
To me, the problem is that our democratic government is involved in a business it should stay out of.
JimK
two individuals are free to make any contract they'd like to already
the government part comes when they force insurance companies to include certain associations as families or make tax rules favoring certain types of associations; that's when governmental endorsement is significant
these are reserved for hetrosexual relationships and should be
they make for a healthier and stronger society
Encouraging monogamy for all makes for a healthier and stronger society.
encouraging that doesn't seem to have any effect
old tired out gays will tend to be moderately promiscuous despite usually having a regular partner
younger ones engage in random widespread promiscuity
they see it as part of the attraction of the lifestyle
that's why gays are so disproportionately represented among those infected with AIDS
“I didn't even know there were female leprechauns -- I've never heard of them in any of the old folklore. It was always "finding a leprechaun and getting HIS gold." So are these genetic female leprechauns or trans leprechauns?”
Given that they own half of all the rainbows, I’m assuming that the leprechaun gay agenda was successful in destroying their civilization, which has left them relegated to the cloning of themselves, and their environments, which clearly lead to their having cracked the pot-o-gold-rainbow clone code.
They were very happy.
Until the day this band of lesbiechauns showed up demanding use of their cloning technology.
As you can imagine, all hell broke loose…
--Kitchens were cleaned
--Crops were planted
--Cats were fed
--Furniture was stained
-- and yes, a few bears were harmed in the process
Needless to say, the leprechauns were incensed. They said, “How dare these loose cannons of productivity be free to roam mythology?” And then a little one spoke up, perhaps the littlest one of all, perhaps even the littlesst one with the ever so slightest lips one of all, and as in a whisper, ever so delicately uttered the words…Them lesbiechauns wouldn’t know staining a door from staining they’re own knickers!
And with that, it was war. The leprechauns cloned hills for themselves, and then took their cloning technology to the hills.
And in the effort the throw off the seeking to share clone technology lesbiechauns, the leprechauns left behind acre after acre of pristine, hypnotic cartoon-like fields. Each with a pot-o-gold rainbow center.
And the lesbiechauns were never heard from again.
---------
I can't say that I'm sure that that's exactly what happened, so don’t quote me on any of that, But that’s basically the gist of what I remember.
Also, don’t tell anyone I said so, but apparently those pot-o-gold rainbow clones are just as valuable as the naturally occurring kind.
Svelte_Brunette writes,
And now that gays are struggling to get together and form committed, monogamous relationships recognized and sanctioned by both their friends and the state, the whole society is “tending in the direction of decadence.”
Look, it is without dispute that some gays and lesbians have formed relationships, stable relationships that put to shame many heterosexuals, but that is not what is the matter of discussion/argument in this blog posting. This blog entry is about the use and abuse of language To redefine marriage in such a way as has never been meant in the history of humankind is an abuse of the language (unless you happen to subscribe to the John Boswell School of Christian History). Abuse of the language, as I pointed out with the assistance of George Orwell, is a sign of decadence. Trust me, in our present age there is more than enough decadence to go around.
Then Jim writes,
I have said on the blog here several times that I don't know why a government is involved in deciding who you can marry
Ok, then you would have no problem with a man petitioning to be married to more than one woman, or a woman married to more than one man, or a father and his adult daughter getting a license to marry...correct? Ok then, now lay out a principled rationale that makes as much sense as the one we have now.
Having the right to select your partner is not the same thing as having a right to commit incest or polygamy. Straw man arguments are the best you've got?
Oops! You can do better than that.
"Having the right to select your partner is not the same thing as having a right to commit incest or polygamy"
really?
how's it different
Orin wrote:
“Abuse of the language, as I pointed out with the assistance of George Orwell, is a sign of decadence.”
I enjoyed the passage from Orwell, and I was looking forward to seeing how you would try and use it to deny consenting gay adults the right to marry. You usually have a better temperament and argument than the Anons, so I was disappointed when your tie-in devolved to:
“I would submit that a culture that calls the destruction of unborn human life "choice" and calls the coupling of two men or two women (then again, why limit it to just two?...maybe those old time Mormons are on to something) "marriage" is tending in the direction of decadence.”
I agree that the destruction of an unborn human life is a tragedy. I would personally like to see the day that it never happens. As someone who will never be able to have her own child, I would welcome the opportunity to be the mother to a child that would have otherwise been aborted. I would prefer to do this in the context of a full family, i.e. with a husband. It takes a small village to raise a child, and if I were going to take on the responsibility and privilege of raising a young, precious human life, I’d want to get “all my ducks in a row” first. If something were to happen to me, I’d want to make sure there was a relative I loved to bring the child up to be a happy productive adult in my place. So without some recognition of at least a trans marriage, if not a gay marriage, I’m in a legal limbo. Is any marriage I make legal?
As you pointed out in a later post though, “This blog entry is about the use and abuse of language to redefine marriage in such a way as has never been meant in the history of humankind is an abuse of the language.”
As such, bringing up the issue of abortion in this particular discussion (in the first post) is simply a red herring. It has nothing to do with an Orwellian change of the definition of marriage.
Going back to your other point “then again, why limit it to just two?...maybe those old time Mormons are on to something” you try to conflate gay marriage with polygamy. In particular, I would assume you are referring to Fundamentalist Mormons as we know them here in the US. This group was most recently led by their prophet Warren Jeffs, who was recently convicted on “two counts of being an accomplice in the rape of a teenage girl.” (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1665547,00.html)
Later, Aunt Bea wrote: “Having the right to select your partner is not the same thing as having a right to commit incest or polygamy. “
And one of the Anons asked: “really? how's it different.”
That is quite simple. In fact, I would have thought it was obvious and didn’t need explanation. Apparently I was wrong though. So I’ll type real slow and hope folks get it:
The people fighting for gay marriage are fighting for the rights to two conscientious CONSENTING UNRELATED ADULTS to have the right to legally commit themselves to each other for better or worse, for as long as they both shall live. Our society has structured a number of legal and tax benefits around the institution of marriage that these people should be afforded as well.
Incest is “Sexual relations between persons who are so closely related that their marriage is illegal or forbidden by custom.” (From Dictionary.com, American Heritage dictionary) For many people, the first thing that comes to mind when they hear the term “incest” is the abuse of a heterosexual father to his non-consenting, underage daughter, who is inevitably told to keep things secret under the threats of severe penalty. Conflating gays with these folks may further your cause, but has nothing to do with the rights gays are fighting for.
Polygamy, as we’ve come to know it here recently, also involves heterosexual males and teenage girls whose “consent” is of dubious validity. The males of the Fundamentalist Mormon sect have used their religion to create a society in which impregnating teenage girls with or without their consent is socially acceptable as long as it is within a “marriage” was ordained by the “prophet.” Most of our society considers what these men have to do to these girls to maintain this society “brain washing.”
The situations noted above involve underage CHILDREN, not adults. As children, they are not considered capable of making a decision of there own totally free will as to whether or not it is appropriate for them to have sexual relations with an adult – which it is not. As such, adults who have sex with children are normally prosecuted for engaging in such behavior, as they should be. No one should be forced to have sex against their will, or even if it is their “will,” if they are not fully aware of all of the ramifications, and of a mind to make that choice ENTIRELY of their OWN free will.
Gay adults, being adults, ARE capable of making informed decisions about who they want to have sex with and whom they would like to marry. Each party involved can make that decision of their own free will. Just like adult heterosexual couples. No child is being forced to marry or have sex against their will in allowing gay adults to get married.
It’s late, and I’m starting to ramble, so I’ll just reiterate:
Gay marriage is about TWO CONSENTING UNRELATED ADULTS. Incest and polygamy (as we know it to be practiced currently) are not. Trying to equate gay marriage to incest and polygamy may help sway uncritical thinkers to your camp, but they are not the same things.
On another note I find it ironic that the etymological / Orwellian argument against gays had to use references to questionable and / or disgusting behaviors most often (or solely) associated with heterosexuals. Talk about an abuse of language.
Have a nice day,
Sleepy Cyn
"Gay adults, being adults, ARE capable of making informed decisions about who they want to have sex with"
You missed the memo, Cyn. TTF's official position is that gays have no choice what they do.
"It takes a small village to raise a child,"
No, it doesn't. It takes a mother and a father.
It does take a village to protect a child, however, and, with our tolerance of abortion, our village has failed.
TTF's official position is that gays have no choice what they do.
This is a lie.
JimK
Anon blurted “You missed the memo, Cyn. TTF's official position is that gays have no choice what they do.”
I’m not a TTF official, so I’m not included on memos. Jim can let us know if there is an official TTF position.
From what I’ve read here and other places though, gays argue that they have no choice in their SEXUAL ORIENTATION, not “no choice in what they do.” I realize that may be a difficult concept for some people to grasp, so let me try to explain it in a context that might make it clearer:
Since we haven’t heard anything in the ubiquitous news reports of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston having received “reparative therapy” for homosexual tendencies, I think it’s pretty safe to conclude that they (like most people I know) DID NOT CHOOSE to be heterosexuals – they just were (are). And since we haven’t heard any accusations of rape, it appears they CHOSE to have sex out of wedlock and risk having a child with each other.
In case that was too complicated, let me simplify it some more:
Sexual orientation – not a choice.
Where you put your genitals – choice.
On another note, I stated: "It takes a small village to raise a child,"
To which Anon rebutted:
“No, it doesn't. It takes a mother and a father.”
To which I ask, if mother and father are not farmers, where does the food come from? If mother and father are not publishers, where do the school books come from? If mother and father are not carpenters, where does the house come from?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
the mother and father buy them
Indeed Anon.
They buy them from the other people in the village necessary to help support the upbringing of their children.
We are all interdependent Anon.
If you used a phone sometime during the ‘90s there’s a pretty good chance that it went though a central office mux somewhere along the way that was maintained by test equipment I helped design. If you are currently watching satellite television from a particular company, you might find it interesting to know that I also helped design test equipment that helps maintain that system. In a couple of places out west there are folks getting internet services over their power lines and through their power meter. I’ve recently been working on a monitoring and control system that will be used in city busses. Despite how much some people here hate me, it just may be that this curly-haired villager has made their life a little easier.
Raising a child is no small task, and two loving parents are just the start of what that child will need.
Peace,
Cynthia
the issue, Cynthia, is not whether we are inter-dependent but who is tasked with what
selling food or books to parents is not "raising" a child, it is providing commodities that parents, among others, will use to fulfill their responsibilities
the difference is not trivial
Post a Comment
<< Home